On Wed, Jun 2, 2010, Tisane <tisane2718 at gmail.com> wrote :
Those commandments are pretty lame, especially #6 and #8.
I agree with the #8. Imagine I take some code from you and I say I've desigend it. Do you really think this would be ethical ?
For the #6, I admit this is a bit lame...
Samuel Marchand
-----Original Message----- From: mediawiki-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:mediawiki-l- bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Samuel Marchand Sent: Thursday, 3 June 2010 3:00 a.m. To: mediawiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Mediawiki-l] Moral standards
On Wed, Jun 2, 2010, Tisane <tisane2718 at gmail.com> wrote :
Those commandments are pretty lame, especially #6 and #8.
I agree with the #8. Imagine I take some code from you and I say I've desigend it. Do you really think this would be ethical ?
For the #6, I admit this is a bit lame...
[Michael Hutchinson] How about the OP sets up their own Mediawiki-Morality mailing list, perhaps hosted in the North Pole over 300 baud modem, then we can all get back to working with MediaWiki and its extensions.
Morality is not a MediaWiki issue. It is the issue of the person who brought a social topic to a technical discussion area.
Can we buck up our Moral standards and make this the last post mentioning Moral standards ? ;)
Cheers, Michael Hutchinson mhutchinson@Manux.co.nz
Mike Hutchinson wrote:
Can we buck up our Moral standards and make this the last post mentioning Moral standards ? ;)
Cheers, Michael Hutchinson mhutchinson@Manux.co.nz
I feel there is some unease. The routine of the newsgroup has been broken.
To answer your question, yes we can, this is my last post to this thread.
Summarize : Computer_Ethics would be a better word then Moral Standards, which is defined in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_Commandments_of_Computer_Ethics#The_Command...
It is a wiki so anyone who does not agree with this knows what to do. I we would make exceptions for this newsgroup that is possible. Please create a specific Computer_Ethics wiki page somewere and let us know. But until that moment I assume that the standard Computer_Ethics applies.
I did not want to enforce any moral standard. In the contrary, I just wanted to reveal the existing rules which were hidden, at least for me.
There were persons would thought this is a topic and some who don't. No one forced you to respond. Those would did think it was a topic got not always a polite reply. So a second reply by them was very limited. This blocks an open discussion. I would have appreciated a bit more courtesy to people who have a different opinion.
The discussion about allowing the discussion (using which rules?) took all the attention. At the end it seems to be quite simple. The problem is solved.
If needed I will refer to these Computer_Ethics in future threads.
I thank all who contributed, to those who did want to start an open discussion and also to those would did not.
WIth regards
Bernard
Dear all,
This is to inform you that unauthorized use of the WETE testing environment, or derived work from the WETE, is illegal, no matter which new name (MediaWiki testing seems to be used now) is given to the testing environment.
The Open Source license has been temporarily withdrawn due to abuse of the license. For more information see http://extensiontesting.wikiation.nl
This is a reply to the thread http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-l/2010-May/033981.html
I am sorry for the inconvenience.
With regards,
Bernard
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Bernard@bernardHulsman.nl bernard@bernardhulsman.nl wrote:
Dear all,
This is to inform you that unauthorized use of the WETE testing environment, or derived work from the WETE, is illegal, no matter which new name (MediaWiki testing seems to be used now) is given to the testing environment.
The Open Source license has been temporarily withdrawn due to abuse of the license. For more information see http://extensiontesting.wikiation.nl
This is a reply to the thread http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-l/2010-May/033981.html
I am sorry for the inconvenience.
With regards,
Bernard
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
The unit tests referred to in your linked post are written using PHPUnit, not in your testing framework. No need to freak out.
-Chad
Hello Chad,
If you work with PHPUnit testing and not with the WETE or derived work then this does not applies to you. It is indeed something total differed.
So Chad sorry for this inconvenience. It does not apply for you.
I spend a lot of effort and money in improving the quality of MediaWiki extensions with the WETE. Not only for me but for the whole community. Without receiving a donation of any kind for this. For a small company it was a huge investment.
It was a kind of thank you from me to the community what MediaWiki has done for me. With an amount which was really huge and what I had never done before and I will not do it again. But I felt this community is really special and I had warm feelings for it. Unfortunately some people disturbed this feeling for me. Still I believe the behaviour of some do not represent the whole community.
The only think what I wanted back is recognition. With the abuse this was snatched from me.
Legally I am forced to reply on the same channel where I notice a abuse of the license. If I would not do so I would lose my legal procedure.
So Chad I hope you comprehend. Again sorry. It applies only for the WETE and derived work. Not for PHPUnit.
Good luck with testing.
With regards,
Bernard
Chad wrote:
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 3:40 AM, Bernard@bernardHulsman.nl bernard@bernardhulsman.nl wrote:
Dear all,
This is to inform you that unauthorized use of the WETE testing environment, or derived work from the WETE, is illegal, no matter which new name (MediaWiki testing seems to be used now) is given to the testing environment.
The Open Source license has been temporarily withdrawn due to abuse of the license. For more information see http://extensiontesting.wikiation.nl
This is a reply to the thread http://lists.wikimedia.org/pipermail/mediawiki-l/2010-May/033981.html
I am sorry for the inconvenience.
With regards,
Bernard
MediaWiki-l mailing list MediaWiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-l
The unit tests referred to in your linked post are written using PHPUnit, not in your testing framework. No need to freak out.
-Chad
Hi,
On Thu, Jun 17, 2010 at 16:40, Bernard@bernardHulsman.nl bernard@bernardhulsman.nl wrote:
This is to inform you that unauthorized use of the WETE testing environment, or derived work from the WETE, is illegal, no matter which new name (MediaWiki testing seems to be used now) is given to the testing environment.
The Open Source license has been temporarily withdrawn due to abuse of the license. For more information see http://extensiontesting.wikiation.nl
As I've never used WETE before, this discussion has nothing to do with me. However, I thought what you said was "interesting" and decided to search for it. When I read what you said, it made me wonder if it's possible to withdraw a license. I guess one article says it isn't:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13556_3-9816749-61.html
Once you've set up a license and someone agreed to it at the point of download or installation (wherever you put it), you can't change your mind. Of course, you can prevent future downloads and in a few cases I've seen, future versions of the software end up being closed and the one that was open is never improved or patched. But it seems impossible to be able to change a license after it was agreed upon...
I'm no lawyer and not even a user of WETE, but just thought you'd like to know. But you can take a look at the above article and others through Internet searching to see for yourself... I suppose we should consider carefully before assigning an open source license to something; not something that you can get back or undo easily.
Ray
Raymond Wan r.wan@aist.go.jp wrote:
[...] I'm no lawyer and not even a user of WETE, but just thought you'd like to know. But you can take a look at the above article and others through Internet searching to see for yourself... I suppose we should consider carefully before assigning an open source license to something; not something that you can get back or undo easily.
Bernard has discussed this topic, including the consequences for him personally, in January on this very mailing list at length. So please: No reruns.
Tim
Agreed.
----- Original Message ----- From: Tim Landscheidt tim@tim-landscheidt.de
So please: No reruns.
Bernard has discussed this topic, including the consequences for him personally, in January on this very mailing list at length. So please: No reruns.
Tim
That was a total different subject. That was a discussion about the possibility making proprietary Open Source. That discussion is indeed closed.
This is about stealing a license from me. That is totally different. Stealing does not hurt. Facing the consequences of theft hurts. The result of the theft is also illegal.
That was my message. I do agree with you there is no need to start a long discussion here.
You can blame the thief, you can blame the messager of the theft, it is up to you.
My preference is coming back to this community with one sentence with the end result of the legal issue and continue extension testing or whatever name is given to it.
With regards,
Bernard
You can blame the thief, you can blame the messager of the theft, is it up to you.
mediawiki-l@lists.wikimedia.org